Classic Battlefield Tours

Vickers Swallow In the years following the Second World War, there was significant interest in developing a new generation of aircraft designs based on the knowledge acquired during the conflict. British engineer and inventor Barnes Wallis, a long-term employee of the aircraft company Vickers-Armstrongs, took a particular interest in variable-sweep wings and the potential of advanced wing designs. During this work, Wallis conceived of an aircraft that lacked conventional features, such as a vertical stabiliser and rudder, instead using the movement of variable geometry wings as its primary flight control. Wallis' concept attracted interest within the British government. The Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Defence jointly arranged for a series of tests to demonstrate the technology's application to projectiles, both for research purposes and as a potential form of anti-aircraft defence. Out of this research, Wallis produced a new aircraft design, equipped with a moveable delta wing configuration and relatively large compared with traditional long-distance aircraft of the era. It was commonly referred to by the name Swallow. Multiple roles were envisioned for the full-scale Swallow. It was initially viewed as suitable for a very long-distance airliner; projections of its range would have enabled a non-stop UK-Australia route to be served. Later on, the Swallow was increasingly viewed as a potential supersonic successor to the subsonic Vickers Valiant, one of the RAF's V bombers. By the summer of 1956, a series of flying models had been flown and data gathered from flight tests; this information had reportedly resolved all of the Swallow's technical problems; by this time, however, government interest was fading in light of other commitments. Vickers was unable to independently finance its development to a full-size aircraft. In June 1957, Ministry funding for the venture was withdrawn; accordingly, formal work on the project ceased during that same year. Despite the termination, Swallow continued to attract attention internationally. In late 1958, research efforts were temporarily revived through cooperation with the Mutual Weapons Development Programme of NATO, under which all of Wallis' variable geometry research was shared with the Americans. According to aviation author James R. Hansen, American aerospace engineer John Stack was enthusiastic about the concept, as were numerous engineers at NASA; however, the United States Department of Defense was opposed to committing any resources to the project.[8] Research into Swallow produced several new configurations aimed at improving aspects of its performance, some involved the adoption of a compact folding tail section, canards, an expanded fuselage, and repositioned engines. While the concept drew the attention of the United States Navy, competing programmes, such as  supersonic transport (SST), led to no commitments ever being made, thus Swallow did not go any further.

Vickers Wild Goose After World War II, designer Barnes Wallis turned his attention from bombs back to aircraft. He reviewed the technology required for high-speed, long-distance flight and concluded that a tailless variable-sweep wing offered major advantages over conventional designs. A major part of this advantage was a radical revision of the flight control system. Control would primarily be affected by moving the wings in flight, avoiding the need for conventional control surfaces or tails. The change was so radical that he even proposed that it should no longer be considered an airplane but a new type of flying machine, which he called a wing-controlled aerodyne. Wallis named the project Wild Goose. His employer Vickers was not able to sponsor such a large-scale project, so the variable-sweep wing anti-aircraft missile Green Lizard was proposed and Wild Goose was positioned as necessary preliminary research in order to obtain government funding. By 1949 he was ready to build a large-scale radio-controlled flying model. The wing-controlled aerodyne, as Wallis called his concept, was aerodynamically extremely clean. It comprised a streamlined ichthyoid (fish-like) body with mid-mounted movable wings on either side. He had learned from his work on the stability of airships such as the R100 that such a streamlined body needed only a small deflection to create large control forces. In the wing-controlled aerodyne, these forces are created by moving the whole wing. Conventional control surfaces including ailerons and elevators were not needed. However, Wild Goose, his first large-scale design, was given a swept vertical tail fin. The launching trolley and radio control system proved more complex and Wallis spent more time on these than on the actual airframe. The trolley was rocket-powered and ran on rails. Early problems with separation for flight led to a doubling of rocket power and a late-release system so that the Wild Goose leaped upward when released, beyond the reach of aerodynamic interactions with the airflow around the trolley. Wild Goose was to be launched from a powered trolley. Teething troubles led to the first two examples crashing on takeoff. The first successful flight came with the third example on 19 January 1950, however, the remote pilot crashed it when attempting to land. The next one lasted until 29 April 1952, when it was accidentally flown into a concrete wall after demonstrating that National Physical Laboratory predictions of poor handling were unfounded and vindicating the revolutionary aerodynamics and control system. Further tests and crashes followed, with the project being terminated in 1954 when the military lost interest in the Green Lizard missile to be derived from it. By this time Vickers had begun studies on a successor to the Valiant V-bomber and for this Wallis was evolving his Wild Goose design into the Swallow

Kantai Kessen The Decisive Battle Doctrine (Kantai Kessen, "naval fleet decisive battle") was a naval strategy adopted by the Imperial Japanese Navy before the Second World War. The theory was derived from the writings of American naval historian Alfred Thayer Mahan. In the Decisive Battle Doctrine, the Japanese navy would win a war by fighting and winning a single, decisive naval action. The idea gained broad acceptance following the Russo-Japanese War, where a well-trained, smaller Japanese naval force gained a decisive victory in the Sea of Japan at the Battle of Tsushima, defeating the Imperial Russian Navy of their rival the Russian Empire, a Western naval power. Operational plans thereafter were influenced by the effective naval gunnery Japan demonstrated at Tsushima. From the turn of the century up through the start of the Second World War Japanese planners believed achieving victory in such a battle would be dependent upon the effective use of a strong battleship force. The Japanese triumph at Tsushima led to the naval doctrine of Taikan Kyohō Shug the principle of big ships and gigantic guns. Imperial Japanese Navy planning envisioned assuming a defensive posture and waiting for the enemy fleet to approach, then destroying it in a sharp battle off the Japanese mainland. Japan's victory over the Imperial Russian Navy validated this doctrine in the eyes of the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff. Thereafter naval procurement and subsequent deployment of naval assets was based upon the Kantai Kessen doctrine. Picture shows Japanese battleships Yamato and Musashi, which were a central element of Japan's "Decisive Battle" doctrine.

Walking the Somme Tour with Dan Hill 28th to 3rd July 2025 Tour Details This is a unique walking tour of the Somme Battlefields with our expert guide Dan Hill. Itinerary Day 1 Montreuil and Gommecourt Following our pickup in the UK we head across the channel to France and on to Montreuil, headquarters of the BEF and Sir Douglas Haig during the battle of the Somme. After setting the scene, we visit Gommecourt, the site of an ill-fated diversionary assault on 1st July 1916. After walking the ground, we move on to beautiful town of Arras to check in to our accommodation for the tour. Day 2 Walking the Somme Our first full walking day sees us following the tragic story of the divisions who assaulted strongly held German positions north of the Albert-Baupame road on 1st July 1916, with devastating results. This walk across the entire day traces the frontline of that morning and tells many tragic tales of what took place here more than a century ago. Day 3 Walking the Somme Our second day focus will be on the southern half of the British sector on the infamous 1st July, where at least some success was seen, a stark contrast to the story of the north. Day 4 Walking the Somme Our third day of walking the battlefields is one focussed on the advances in the weeks following the initial assault. Mametz Wood, Bazentin Ridge and the brutal fight around High Wood are all on the agenda Day 5 Walking The Somme The morning of Day 6 is one spent looking at the final shots of the 1916 Somme Campaign. In horrific conditions and utterly exhausted, the men of the BEF made one last large scale advance, and finally saw real progress. Our morning’s walk will trace that journey either side of the fog-shrouded river Ancre. An afternoon returning to the coast and our onwards journey to the UK completes a unique walking tour of the Battle of the Somme. The cost is £1,795 per person For more information, please follow this link: https://lnkd.in/eHiA3xWw

Shetland Bus The Shetland Bus was the nickname of a clandestine special operations group that made a permanent link between Mainland Shetland in Scotland and German-occupied Norway from 1941 until the surrender of Nazi Germany on 8 May 1945. This link transferred agents in and out of Norway, providing them with weapons, radios, and other supplies. From mid-1942, the group's official name was the Norwegian Naval Independent Unit (NNIU). In October 1943, it became an official part of the Royal Norwegian Navy and was renamed the Royal Norwegian Naval Special Unit (RNNSU). The unit was operated initially by many small fishing boats and later augmented by three fast and well-armed submarine chasers – Vigra, Hessa, and Hitra. Crossings were mostly made during the winter under the cover of darkness. This meant the crews and passengers had to endure very heavy North Sea conditions, with no lights and constant risk of discovery by German aircraft or patrol boats. There was also the possibility of being captured whilst carrying out the mission on the Norwegian coast. Early on it was decided that camouflage was the best defence, and the boats were disguised as working fishing boats and the crew as fishermen. The fishing boats were armed with light machine guns concealed inside oil drums placed on deck. The operation was under constant threat from German forces, and several missions went awry, of which the Telavåg tragedy in spring 1942 was a prime example. Several fishing boats were lost during the early operations, but after receiving the three submarine chasers there were no more losses. Telavåg tragedy Telavåg played an important role in the secret North Sea boat traffic between Norway and Great Britain. On 26 April 1942, after having discovered that some of the inhabitants of Telavåg were hiding two men, Arne Meldal Værum and Emil Gustav Hvaal, the Gestapo arrived to arrest the Norwegian officers. Shots were exchanged, and two prominent German Gestapo officers (Kriminalrat Gerhard Berns and Kriminalsekretär Henry Bertram) were shot dead. Arne Værum was also killed in the incident. Emil Hvaal and his son were executed a few months later. Reichskommissar Josef Terboven personally oversaw the Nazi reprisal, which was quick and brutal. On 30 April, as the villagers were watching, all buildings were destroyed, all boats were sunk or confiscated, and all livestock was taken away. All men in the village were either executed or sent to the Nazi concentration camp at Sachsenhausen. Of the 72 who were deported from Telavåg, 31 were murdered in captivity. Women and children were imprisoned for two years. 18 Norwegian prisoners (unrelated to Telavåg) held at the Trandum internment camp were also executed as a reprisal. Though smaller in scale, this atrocity is often compared to similar events at Lidice in the Czech Republic and Oradour-sur-Glane in France.

Expert talk via Zoom on the Shetland Bus by Gillian Halcrow 31st October 2024 Talk Details This is the story of the brave Norwegian sailors, organised by the SOE, in their fishing boats who kept links open between occupied Norway and Britain during WWII, taking agents in with supplies for the resistance and escaping refugees out. Not only did they have to face sub-Arctic storms in the North Sea but also the might of the Nazi war machine out searching for them. A moving account of what affectionately became known as ‘The Shetland Bus’; helping Norway to bring back its peace and its pride. Gillian Halcrow Gillian has been inspired to research and prepare an address to honour the brave men and women SOE agents who served their country in World War II. She has been fascinated by the subject for many years and has received a terrific response to previous engagements on the subject. She will capture your interest from the start, and over the course of the talk, will move you both to laughter and to tears. The talk is from 6 pm to 7 pm on Thursday 31st October The cost is £10, in aid of: The Land, Sea & Islands Centre, Arisaig, Scotland Follow the link to book: https://lnkd.in/e7XvxZwH

What is the difference between the designation BF 109 German fighter and ME 109? The Bf-109, or Me-109, is arguably one of the best fighter planes that came out of Germany during World War II. Although the Fw-190 was more advanced than the early versions of the 109, more 109s were produced than any other aircraft in Germany and are credited with the most kills. Some people say Me-109 while others Bf-109 and the debate is as old as the aircraft itself. There is, however, a clean and clear answer to this argument. Although it would make perfect logical sense to call this aircraft “Me-109” as it was built by Messerschmitt (the first two letters being its designation as in Fw-190 for Focke-Wulf), the aircraft was first built under a different company. In 1935 when it first flew, these aircraft were built by a company called Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, hence the designation of “Bf.” In 1939 Willy Messerschmitt became the new owner of the company and renamed it after his last name. Since then, all of the variants built before 1938 had a “Bf” designation and all the subsequent ones the designation of “Me.”

The Walter catapult Ground-launched V-1 flying bombs were propelled up an inclined launch ramp by an apparatus known as a Dampferzeuger ("steam generator"), in which steam was generated when hydrogen peroxide (T-Stoff) was mixed with sodium permanganate (Z-Stoff). Designed by Hellmuth Walter, where the T-Stoff and Z-Stoff combined, generating high-pressure steam that was fed into a tube within the launch rail box. A piston in the tube, connected underneath the missile, was propelled forward by the steam. It is a common misconception that the steam launch was to allow the engine to start running but the real reason was that the Argus had insufficient power to propel the V1 to a speed above its extremely high stall speed. The launch rail was 49 m (160 ft) long, consisting of eight modular sections, each 6 m (20 ft) long, and a muzzle brake. Production of the Walter catapult began in January 1944. Once near the launch ramp, the wing spar and wings were attached and the missile was slid off the loading trolley, Zubringerwagen, onto the launch ramp. The ramp catapult was powered by the Dampferzeuger trolley. The pulse-jet engine was started by the Anlassgerät, which provided compressed air for the engine intake, an electrical connection to the engine spark plug, and autopilot. The Bosch spark plug was only needed to start the engine, while residual flame ignited further mixtures of gasoline and air, and the engine would be at full power after 7 seconds. The catapult would then accelerate the bomb above its stall speed of 320 km/h (200 mph), ensuring sufficient ram air.

Free City of Danzig The Free City of Danzig was a city-state under the protection and oversight of the League of Nations between 1920 and 1939, consisting of the Baltic Sea port of Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) and nearly 200 other small localities in the surrounding areas. Although predominantly German-populated, the territory was bound by the imposed union with Poland covering foreign policy, defence, customs, railways, and post. Still, it remained distinct from both the post-war German Republic and the newly independent Polish Republic. In addition, Poland was given certain rights about port facilities in the city. In the 1920 Constituent Assembly election, the Polish Party received over 6% of the vote, but its percentage of votes later declined to about 3%. A large number of Danzig Poles voted for the Catholic Centre Party instead. In 1921, Poland began to develop the city of Gdynia, then a midsized fishing town. This completely new port north of Danzig was established on territory awarded in 1919, the so-called Polish Corridor. By 1933, the commerce passing through Gdynia exceeded that of Danzig. By 1936, the city's senate had a majority of local Nazis, and agitation to rejoin Germany was stepped up. Many Jews fled from German persecution. After the German invasion of Poland in 1939, the Nazis abolished the Free City and incorporated the area into the newly formed Reichsgau of Danzig-West Prussia. The Nazis classified the Poles and Jews living in the city as subhumans, subjecting them to discrimination, forced labor, and extermination at Nazi concentration camps, including nearby Stutthof (now Sztutowo, Poland). Upon the city's capture in the early months of 1945 by the Soviet and Polish troops, a significant number of German inhabitants perished in ill-prepared and over-delayed attempts to evacuate by sea, while the remainder fled or were expelled. The city was fully integrated into Poland as a result of the Potsdam Agreement, while members of the pre-war Polish ethnic minority started returning and new Polish settlers began to come. Gdańsk suffered severe underpopulation from these events and did not recover until the late 1950s.

The Gallipoli Campaign Tour with Patrick Mercer, OBE 19-26 September 2025 The Gallipoli campaign was an audacious but unsuccessful offensive against the Ottoman Empire. The alliance system had split Europe into factions of combatants and neutrals. However, at the war’s onset, the Ottomans were a wildcard, unaligned with either side. The empire was strategically positioned between the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Balkans, the Middle East, and North Africa. The Ottoman leadership actively sought a military alliance to enhance their power, favoring Britain as an ally. Constantinople made three attempts to secure an alliance with London in 1908, 1911, and 1913, but all were unsuccessful. For Britain, the potential strategic benefits of an alliance with the Ottomans did not outweigh the risks associated with supporting the weakening empire. Moreover, an alliance with Constantinople would have complicated Britain’s recent alliance with Russia, the Ottoman’s longstanding adversary. Tour Inclusions 7 nights accommodation in carefully selected hotels Daily breakfast and briefing Air-conditioned transportation throughout the tour Services of our expert guide Patrick Mercer throughout Enjoy an in-depth, expert-led tour of the Gallipoli campaign We provide double rooms for single-use We do not charge single supplements Itinerary information Day 1 Istanbul Day 2 Istanbul Military Museum Day 3 Turkish Memorial and French sector Day 4 Kannakale Day 5 Helles Peninsula Day 6 Anzac Cove Day 7 Suvla Bay Day 8 Return home The cost is £2,650 per person For more information follow this link: https://lnkd.in/eFGET728